How about a new rule that if you vote for a war, you are automatically enlisted. And if you're ineligible to enlist you must either abstain or vote no.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 74 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

Congress members get as many votes for war as they have draft-age family members. For each vote they cast, they must enlist 1 family member. Starting with their own children.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 47 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Some of em don't care about their kids. They can go fight, themselves.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 years ago

Some of em don't care about their kids.

As evidenced by their complete lack of concern regarding climate change.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 37 points 2 years ago

Nah just ship the congressmen/women off with the infantry. Then they can see exactly what they're voting for.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Given the low regard for their children and grandchildren they show when it comes to climate change, I doubt that would be an adequate deterrent.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Senators are (with few exceptions) extraordinarily wealthy. When climate change is destroying crops and making some areas uninhabitable, these senators' families will still be living very comfortably.

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Most of their kids are 55+, they can’t enlist lol

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

No different than having no kids.

No kids/grandkids/niblings we can send to war? No right to vote for war.

[–] Potato_in_my_anus@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Why not?... Look at the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they clearly look like 60+.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

As if someone like Trump would even give a second thought to sending his kids off to war?

[–] JimmyDean@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

I see an obvious exploit with this: congress members enlisting family members who would rather vote 'No' just so they can get more votes for their own choice.

You might think "nobody would enlist their child to fight a war that they're against" but I promise you, there are people like that.

[–] WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago

Hey kiddo I really need my war mongering rhetoric to keep my polling up, you're gonna have to sacrafice for this family.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

many have already gladly voted yes for both many times. I don’t think that will stop enough of them.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago

We basically had that a century ago, before the nobility moved behind the scenes and became the 1%

Unqualified scions were sent to the battlefield to gain military merits, which was generally bad for everyone. I'm pretty sure it only really stopped after WWI, when the death toll from combat started getting ridiculous

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Smedley Butler solved this issue back in the 1920's, change the vote from Congress to eligible draftees to solve us going to war for stupid reasons.

Then during times of war, lock down every individual's income and ability to earn money to that of the soldier. Keeping war profiteering from stretching wars on indefinitely.

It's radical, but would probably keep us from just "being at war" eternally. A reality we have had to live in since at least 9/11.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 16 points 2 years ago

The problem these "add a meta policy" proposals all have in common is that they assume we have any control over the legislature... which we don't have; they don't work for us at all. At this point only organizing and other direct action will have any significant impact on actual policy.

In this particular case, legislators would continue to receive bribe income that they refuse to acknowledge as bribery.

[–] TheDubh@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

The problem is the us hasn’t had a formal declaration of war since WW2. Basically we’ve just had military engagements. Some haven’t even been authorized by congress.

Basically we’d need to fix that issue before worrying about the other suggestions. Else it’d just be military engagement not a war so don’t need to fallow them.

[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is the US even still involved in a war since 2021? At least through direct action.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The Global War on Terror is what it's called, it's just a neverending operation of military sorties across the world to support whatever and wherever.

[–] WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We did it Lemmy! War is no more!

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

You can be against war without thinking you'll end war.

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately he was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. Going back probably doesn’t concern him.